Articles Posted in Negligence

by

The health and safety of workers is a pressing concern for both employees and employers alike. When an injury occurs at a job site, many questions arise as to the care of the injured and the responsibility of the employer in regard to that care. As an employee, the question of who pays for the care that may become necessary in the immediate, as well as into the future, is of prominent concern. Also, an injured employee may ask what level of responsibility their employer is held to for the circumstances of the accident and how they can receive compensation for health and living expenses resulting from any injury. What some employees may overlook is that their employment status can often dictate the means and method by which they will be able to recover should a lawsuit become necessary.

The importance of a contract between the employer and the employee who wish to have their relationship classified as statutory cannot be overstated. The recent Louisiana Court of Appeals case out of the Parish of Beauregard, Tilley v. Boise Cascade Corp., illustrates how one’s employment status under the law can affect the outcome of a claim for compensation after injury. Tilley, an employee of the BE & K Construction Company, was contracted to work for a Boise Cascade Corp. owned paper mill. While performing work at a machine in the mill, Tilley was sprayed by a scalding liquid and suffered injury. Tilley’s contract to work had expired six days prior to the accident.

Tilley filed suit. Soon after, Boise Cascade Corp. claimed immunity under Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act Title 23 § 1061, arguing that Tilley was a statutory employee who was only entitled to workers compensation benefits and was not entitled to file suit. Hinging their decision on the contract, the Court of Appeals held that the Boise Cascade failed to prove with any certainty that Tilley’s contract had been extended. Therefore, Tilley was not a statutory employee at the time of the accident and she was free to move forward with her suit.

Continue reading

by

When a caller dials 911 to report an emergency, it is not uncommon for the operator to transfer the caller to the local service provider that is best suited to respond to the incident. For instance, a caller who reports an auto accident can expect to be connected with the nearest ambulance service. In the case of Willis v. Rapides Parish Communications District, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal examined the duty owed by an ambulance dispatcher when a transfer does not go through.

Johnny Willis was involved in a single-car accident on La. Hwy. 488 just outside of Oak Hill. The crash was discovered by a passer-by, Shirley Ponthieux, who called 911. The operator for the Rapides Parish Communications District (RPCD) answered her call, contacted the fire department, and then attempted to transfer her directly to Acadian Ambulance because of another incoming call. The operator did not think that taking the other call would affect the transfer, but in fact it failed and Ponthieux was cut off. Because of the phone confusion and because the fire department could not obtain a cellular signal to call Acadia Ambulance when it arrived on the scene, an ambulance did not arrive until approximately an hour later. Sadly, Mr. Willis died at the hospital. His wife, Carleen Willis, filed suit against RPCD and Acadian Ambulance. Her claim against Acadian cited its failure to “receive and respond to the emergency transmission” and that it “failed to establish and utilize a reliable communications system for the receipt of emergency transmissions.” The trial judge granted Acadian Ambulance’s motion for summary judgment, holding that it does not owe a duty to an accident victim until it actually receives a call requesting ambulance service.

On appeal, Willis argued that Acadian Ambulance owed a duty to her husband to properly advise the RPCD of how to communicate with its dispatcher. Further, she cited a letter that Acadian had previously sent to the 911 office in Rankin County, Mississippi that explained the procedures that the 911 operators were to follow. Namely, an operator should remain on the line until Acadian Ambulance answered the call in order for the transfer to be completed, and further should briefly inform the Acadian Ambulance dispatcher of the nature of the call before disconnecting. The court disagreed that the lack of a similar letter to RPCD indicated Acadian’s failure to exercise reasonable care. In fact, the court could point to “no statutory or jurisprudential principles that support the imposition of [a] duty” on Acadian Ambulance “to properly train the employees of the RPCD in the use of the RPCD equipment to communicate with Acadian Ambulance.” Imposing such a duty, in the view of the court, would be inappropriate under the duty-risk analysis favored by the Louisiana Supreme Court. As soon as the Acadian dispatcher actually received a call that an ambulance was needed, he promptly sent one; this met the duty imposed under the law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Acadian Ambulance from the case.

Continue reading

by

According to the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant can file an “exception of prematurity” to challenge whether the plaintiff’s cause of action has “matured to

the point where it is ripe for judicial determination.” A classic (mis)application of the exception is found in the 1999 case, Steed v. St. Paul’s United Methodist Church. In that case, the church’s choir director sued the minister for sexual harassment. The minister filed a counter-claim for defamation, arguing that the choir director’s false allegations damaged his reputation in the Monroe community. Before the appellate court, the choir director asserted that the minister’s defamation claim was premature because the trial court had not yet entered a judgment declaring that her harassment allegations were false (truth being an absolute defense to defamation). However, because the choir director never filed an exception of prematurity in the trial court, she could not raise the issue on appeal. This is because, as a “dilatory” exception, it is waived if not specifically pled and a court cannot “supply an exception of prematurity on its own motion.”

A similar failure to plead the exception plagued the plaintiff in the more recent case of Moreno v. Entergy Corp.. Daniel Moreno was badly shocked while working around overhead power lines in Jefferson Parish. Moreno sued Entergy Corporation, the owner of the power lines. Entergy filed a cross-claim against Moreno’s employer, Stewart Interior Contractors, LLC. Entergy argued that, if it were found liable for Moreno’s injuries, the Act would create a right of indemnity against Stewart because the contractor violated the Overhead Power Line Safety Act (the “Act”) by working near the power lines without first contacting the owner of the lines (Entergy) and making the necessary safety arrangements. The trial court ruled against Entergy, finding that the Act “does not create an independent right of indemnity for damages incurred as a result of injuries suffered by third parties.” When Entergy appealed this judgment, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed on the grounds of prematurity, though the exception had not been raised by any party. The Fifth Circuit declared that because no fault had yet been allocated to any party, no cause of action for indemnity had been created. The court entered an “exception of no cause of action on the basis of prematurity,” a judgment which had not been seen previously in Louisiana jurisprudence. Upon review, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the Fifth Circuit erred as a matter of law in supplying the exception to prematurity on its own motion. “Although the court of appeal claimed it was entering an exception of no cause of action, the judgment was not truly based on the legal insufficiency of the allegations [for which it was permitted to raise an exception on its own accord]. It is clear that the court based its ruling solely on the theory that Entergy’s indemnity claim was not ripe for adjudication, which is properly raised only via dilatory exception.” Accordingly, the court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case.

Continue reading

by

Over the course of the last century, products liability law has become more detailed and specific in terms of protecting consumers from injury caused by products. If a product is found to be defective, in most cases any sellers along the chain of sale can be held liable. This means that, from the manufacturers to the retailer, all parties can be held liable if damage is caused by a product. The reason for this trend in the law is to give the benefit of the doubt to the consumer because the consumer needs protection. Further, stricter laws force manufacturers to produce better products. If they know that a defective product could potentially results in a multi-million dollar law suit, they will make sure the products they produce are safe.

This protection is especially true as it pertains to young children. Because children have less experience in life, there is a higher chance that they can make a mistake which would be unreasonable to make if it were an adult. However, even the law does not extend such benefits fully to all actions by children and teenagers. In a recent case, Payne v. Gardner, the Louisiana Supreme Court identified a point at which even a teenager could not be protected.

In 2004, in Rapides Parish, Henry Goudeau was playing around an oil well pump. The oil well pumps on oil wells move back and forth like a pendulum. As Henry was playing around the oil well pump, he noticed the movement of the pump and decided to use the pump as a pendulum type swing for recreational purposes. Afer he jumped on the pump when it reached its highest point, his leg got caught in another part of the pump which unfortunately lead Henry to be seriously injured. Henry’s mother decided to sue the manufacturer of the pump, Lufkin Industries. A serious battle arose as to whom the blame should fall upon. Should Lufkin have know that their pumps would be used as a ride? Should Henry have used better care in making a determination of whether it was safe to ride on the pump?

Continue reading

by

The term “venue” refers to the particular court where a plaintiff should file his suit. In the case of car accidents and other tort actions, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure gives the plaintiff a choice of venue. The plaintiff can file the suit in the parish where the accident occurred or, alternatively, in the parish where the defendant driver resides. When a liability insurer is involved as a defendant, the suit can also be filed in the parish where the insurance company is registered. The case of Lopez v. Richard illustrates how the misapplication of the venue rules can have serious, undesirable consequences for a plaintiff.

On March 31, 2006, Gil Lopez was rear-ended by another driver in Lafayette Parish. The driver was Josette Richard, a resident of Lafayette Parish who was insured by Allstate. On the last day of the one-year prescriptive period (April 2, 2007), Lopez filed suit in Iberia Parish, which is the parish where he and his wife live. Richard and Allstate filed an exception for improper venue, and the parties agreed to transfer the case to Lafayette Parish in August of 2007. Once the case was transferred, Richard and Allstate filed an exception of prescription, arguing that Lopez’s action was not properly filed before the expiration of the prescription period. The Third Circuit agreed, stating that “it is well settled that the transfer of an action to a correct venue, after prescription has run, does not resurrect the plaintiff’s lawsuit.” In an attempt to preserve his cause of action, Lopez offered the novel argument that venue in his home parish was proper under the state’s “joint obligor” statute. That is, Lopez argued that because he was a beneficiary under Richard’s Allstate policy, he was also an “insured” under the terms of the policy which provided Allstate’s connection to Iberia Parish and permitted suit there. The court deemed this theory a misapplication of the law which was intended for suits involving Uninsured Motorist coverage, but not a direct policy such as the one Allstate had issued to Richard. Instead, Lopez is merely a “claimant” who will “be paid by Allstate on behalf of their insured, Richard, if Richard is found liable” for the accident. Thus, because Lopez filed his suit in the wrong parish and did not transfer it to a proper parish before the running of the prescription period, his case was dismissed.

The lesson from the Lopez case is that proper venue should be identified as early as possible to ensure that the prescriptive period does not expire before the suit can be filed in the correct court. Misfiling a suit does not toll the running of the period. Had Lopez not waited until the very last minute to file his original suit, he may have been able to transfer to the correct venue and avoid losing his case on a mere (but critically important) technicality.

Continue reading

by

A person’s worst fear when undergoing an invasive surgery, is for something to go wrong. For one patient, this fear came true when his doctor operated on the wrong knee. This severe error was not disputed by the Doctor, who admitted he erroneously operated on the plaintiff’s right knee when he intended to treat the plaintiff patient’s left knee with arthoscopic surgery. What was at issue in this recent Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, is whether or not the injured plaintiff was awarded an appropriate amount in damages. Numerous factors are weighed when determining damages. However, in Louisiana, as well as numerous other states, there is a cap on how much a person may recover in a medical malpractice suit. Patients who have been injured face a litany of complicated issues and standards that are difficult to understand, thus, obtaining legal representation as soon as possible is highly recommended in order to protect legal rights throughout the process.

In a recent Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the court explored the amount of damages a patient was initially awarded for damages they sustained from an erroneously performed surgical procedure. The plaintiff patient complained on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding inadequate damages for past lost wages, past medical expenses, as well as pain and suffering. Additionally, the victim contended that the trial court erred in failing to award future lost wages and future medical expenses for the patient plaintiff and loss of consortium for his wife. The appellate court affirmed the trial courts damages award for numerous reasons, many based on statutory limits that are in place restricting the amount a patient may obtain. Yet, the decision is in large part held by the jury. The jury has the duty to hear the evidence and determine a price that may “make the plaintiff whole again.” In this case, the jury decided that the patient plaintiff had $40,000 in pain and suffering and $10,000 in loss of income. It may seem a harsh factor in the legal process, that despite the severity of a patients injuries, the numerical value given such injuries is designed to “fix” such issues. The plaintiff in this case felt that the jury’s damages award did not adequately resolve any of the issues he was experiencing after having the botched surgical procedure. Since the accident, the victim of this botched surgery had been experiencing serious issues in almost every part of his life, including that the knee which was erroneously operated on was in constant pain, decreased his range of motion, his sense of instability caused him to limp, insomnia, impaired ability to work, back pain induced by the limp which resulted in a herniated disk, and loss of consortium with his wife. Thus, the problems went deeper then the categorical terms such as “pain and suffering and loss of income.” The court however, explains and supports their decision by exploring the governing statutes at issue.

Juries factual finding decisions are highly regarded, and under Louisiana law such decisions may not be set aside unless the appellate court finds that it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. The appellate court will review the witnesses testimony at trial in order to determine whether or not their may have been an erroneous decision. Here, the plaintiff alleged he had to undergo four surgeries due to the Doctor operating on the wrong knee plus a discogram of his back. To support the additional damages that were a result of the erroneous surgical procedure performed by the defendant doctor, the plaintiff offered the testimony of a doctor who contended that the plaintiff would need two back and neck surgeries and would have pain in his right knee for the rest of his life. Further, the plaintiff would have to get a total knee replacement at some point in his life. In consequence to the erroneous surgery, the plaintiff was declared disabled by Social Security and began receiving Social Security Income payments. Additionally, the plaintiff was unable to perform the part time work he was previously able to and the couple eventually went bankrupt. Despite these very sad consequences, the court has to abide by the regulations and statutes that are in place and govern medical malpractice issues.

Continue reading

by

As discussed previously on this blog, the primary duty of Louisiana’s Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) is to maintain the public roadways in a condition that is reasonably safe and which does not present an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who exercise ordinary care. As outlined in this recent post, a plaintiff must prove the following elements in order to hold the DOTD liable for damages arising from an accident on the roadway: (1) that the condition that caused the damage was in DOTD’s control; (2) that the condition amounted to a defect that presented an unreasonable risk of harm; and (3) that the DOTD was aware or should have been aware that the defect existed. In addressing the extent of the risk of harm, litigants often rely on the standards established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”) which, while not mandatory in Louisiana, offer a point of reference for whether DOTD’s design of a particular roadway presented an unreasonable risk. The AASHTO’s standards have evolved over time, however, and in many cases they have become stricter and more elaborate as vehicular traffic volume has increased. In light of this, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that DOTD does not have duty to bring old highways up to modern standards unless a major reconstruction of the highway is undertaken. The question of what qualifies as a “major reconstruction” was at the center of the recent case in the First Circuit Court of Appeal, Davis v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Co.

On the evening of April 22, 2003 Nathaniel Davis, a flatbed truck driver for the Purpera Lumber Company, legally parked his truck in the northbound lane of La. Hwy. 308 so he could deliver a load of lumber to a residential construction site adjacent to the highway. Davis parked in the travel lane because there was no driveway at the site that would accommodate his truck and because the road, which was maintained by DOTD, had no shoulder. Davis was severely injured when his truck was rear-ended by an elderly driver who made no attempt to slow down before she collided with the truck. Davis filed suit naming DOTD as a defendant. His theory of recovery was based on the road’s lack of a shoulder, a deisgn which violated the then-current AASHTO standards requiring an eight-foot extension of the highway. Presumably, the shoulder would have offered a safer location for parking his truck. Ultimately, the First Circuit reviewed a verdict in the trial court in which the jury determined that the lack of a shoulder posed an unreasonably dangerous risk to Davis. However, the jury also found that DOTD did not know (and had no duty to have known) about this condition and thereofre had no duty to cure the defect by constructing a shoulder. Davis argued that a resurfacing project undertaken by the DOTD some years prior to the accident qualified as “major reconstruction” which put DOTD on notice of its duty to upgrade the roadway to include a shoulder. The First Circuit court disagreed, noting that “there is no evidence from which to conclude that the roadway underwent a major reconstruction at that location or even that the State had obtained additional rights of way [necessary for such significant work] in the area of the accident site.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of DOTD.

This is another example in a long line of cases that demonstrates the challenge of winning a claim against DOTD under an ordinary negligence theory. The Louisiana legislature and courts have made clear that DOTD is not the “guarantor for the safety of all of the motoring public [n]or the insurer for all injuries or damages resulting from any risk posed by obstructions on or defects in the roadway.” As a result, an injured plaintiff must have a skilled attorney who understands the nature of DOTD’s responsibilities to those who use the highways.

Continue reading

by

As we have explored in several prior posts on this blog, claims brought against healthcare providers under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act must be examined by medical review panel before proceeding to court. Just over a year ago, the First Circuit Court of Appeal issued guidance to plaintiffs on the procedure they must follow if they should uncover new claims of negligence after the medical panel has completed its review of the original claims and issued an opinion.

On September 14, 1998 Doris Abel underwent surgery at the North Oaks Medical Center (“NOMC”) in Hammond. She died a short time later from complications arising from the surgery. Her family (the “Plaintiffs”) submitted a malpractice complaint against NOMC to the medical review panel in September of 2003, which rendered a decision in favor of NOMC. Plaintiffs then filed suit against NOMC that led to a protracted period of pre-trial discovery. During that time, Plaintiffs discovered new claims of negligence against NOMC and petitioned the court to amend their complaint to include these claims. NOMC objected on the grounds that the medical review panel had not examined these new claims and requested a new trial. The trial court denied NOMC’s request and instead remanded the matter to the original medical review panel for the sole purpose of reviewing Plaintiffs’ new allegations. NOMC sought review by the First Circuit, urging that the there is no procedure in the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (the “Act”) for remanding a case back to a review panel once it has rendered its opinion and a suit has been filed.

The First Circuit began its analysis by noting that the Act’s language “must be strictly construed.” The court, in reiterating that the Act requires that “all malpractice claims against health care providers covered under the Act shall be reviewed by a medical review panel,” concluded that the “use of the term ‘shall’ in these statutory provisions indicates that these procedures are mandatory.” And, although the Act does not specifically address late-discovered claims, the court concluded that “the procedures the legislature mandates for filing a request for review by a medical review panel also encompass malpractice claims that are discovered after the panel has rendered an opinion and suit has been filed.” The court found additional support for this conclusion in the statutory language that describes the review panel’s duty to “express its expert opinion as to whether or not the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant or defendants acted or failed to act within the appropriate standards of care.” The panel must be presented with all evidence in order to discharge this duty. Further, the court decreed that once a panel renders an opinion, its duty has been discharged. “Therefore, if additional malpractice claims are discovered… these new claims must be presented for review by a new medical review panel.” Accordingly, the court found that the trial court erred by remanding the matter back to the original medical review panel. It reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court so it could arrange for a new panel to review the Plaintiffs’ late-discovered claims before trial.

Continue reading

by

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be employed by a plaintiff to establish the defendant’s breach of duty in the absence of direct evidence of the defendant’s negligent conduct. However, use of the doctrine “does not relieve the plaintiff of the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all of the elements necessary for recovery.” To prevail in a negligence claim based on the “ruin, vice, or defect in things,” the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew or should have known of the defect and that the harm to the plaintiff could have been prevented by the defendant’s reasonable care. See Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center.

As the plaintiff in Shuff v. Brookshire Grocery Co. learned, the doctrine cannot be invoked to circumvent this fundamental burden.

On October 15, 2006, Ashley Shuff entered the Super One Foods grocery store in Bastrop with her two children. Upon arrival, Shuff placed her 20-month-old daughter, Cloe, into the child seat that was built into one of the store’s shopping carts and fastened the seat belt. Shuff admitted that the belt mechanism appeared to be working properly when she buckled Cloe in. A short while later, Cloe fell from the seat to the store’s concrete floor and broke her arm. A store patron who observed the incident later inspected the seat and discovered that a prong on the belt’s snap was broken. Shuff sued the grocery store on behalf of her daughter on a negligence theory for damages caused by “ruin, vice, or defect in things.” In the trial court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Shuff argued that the store’s liability for the incident was governed by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur becuase it had responsibilty to maintain the seat and its safety belt. The court denied Shuff’s motion and dismissed her claims.

Continue reading

by

In our last post, we explored the basic elements of class action certification, including the rules that guide a trial court’s decision on whether to grant the certification. Although the trial court is granted wide discretion on this question, it must reach its decision through serious analysis; the failure to substantiate its analysis can result in reversal by the appellate court as illustrated in the recent case, Madison v. Chalmette Refining LLC. On January 12, 2007, a group of students, teachers, and parent chaperones visited the Chalmette National Battlefield. During a historical reenactment, the nearby Chalmette Refinery released a significant amount of petroleum coke dust that was carried to the battlefield area. Five individuals (the “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in federal court against Chalmette Refining, demanding compensation for a variety of damages including “including personal injury, fear, anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychiatric and psychological damages, evacuation, economic damages, and property damages.” The suit sought to represent all individuals who were exposed to the coke dust, specifically:

“all persons entities [sic] located at the Chalmette National Battlefield in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, in the early afternoon of Friday, January 12, 2007 and who sustained property damage, personal injuries, emotional, mental, or economic damages and/or inconvenience or evacuation as a result of the incident.”

The district court allowed the parties to conduct discovery on the issue of class certification. Chalmette Refining took the deposition of each of the five named class representatives, yet the Plaintiffs conducted no discovery at all. At the hearing on the motion to certify the class, no evidence was introduced; at the conclusion, the district court orally granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000
Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design